Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[claire]

Now then Fleetwood, here's a few questions for YOU :
Why do you think that Hutch is surely the 'favourite suspect' of modern times concerning JtR -and the one about whom the most suspect based books have been written ?

If there was "nothing" to connect him to the murders, it makes you wonder why intelligent people would waste time on him..

Could it possibly be that he is the ONLY suspect definitely placed at the 'scene of crime' at the right time..on a dark rainy night, in the early hours of the morning, standing staring at the room of a woman about to be murdered...and that as soon as he becomes part of the investigation, the murders come to an abrupt stop ?

that is unique amongst all the suspects.

.

Ah, the consensus approach...still doesn't mean it's true. Lots of intelligent people, at one point, believed the world was flat. We work with what we have.

As for 'as soon as he becomes part of the investigation, the murders come to an abrupt stop' could equally be said about Lewis, Maxwell, Cox, Prater, Barnett, Mrs Phoenix, Bowyer, McCarthy and a team of others whose names I either don't recall or don't know. It's a meaningless statement.

And, one little thing: he was not seen 'standing staring at the room of a woman about to be murdered.' He was on Dorset-street looking towards Millers-ct. Very different.

[Rubyretro]

Thing is, Ruby, neither you nor me know if the description DID match Hutch, the reason being that neither you nor me have ever seen any description of him that stretches beyond "military appearance". So let´s not jump to conclusions here

Obviously it's all very sketchy (!) -but none the less I think that we can deduct a few things with near certainty : if Mrs Lewis described the man that she saw loitering as short and stout, then Hutch must have matched the description (even if he HADN'T been the man in Miller's Court, he still must have thought that he matched the description). If he had walked into the Police Station being very tall, or thin and sick, or very different to the description, then I think that the Police would immediately be wary and think that he was a fantasist..at least on a balance of probability, we can take Hutch as being 'short and stout'.

'Stout' we can deduce -also with certainty- is 'muscle bound ' rather than 'fat' or even 'flabby'. You would not describe someone as being 'of military appearance' if they were fat or flabby, just for starters. Next he was working as a labourer, and had apparently humped barrels, and his story about walking back from Romford was accepted -so he must have looked fit and strong. I think that Jack London points out that most of the men employed doing physical work at the time originally came from the country, because generations of East Enders were too slight and undernourished to do undertake hard physical jobs. Also, living in the Victoria Home, I doubt that he had the means to get fat.

So now we have a short muscular chunky young man of approx 28 or 29 (Hutch's given age somewhere).

Then there is the interesting detail of 'Military Appearance'...what would spring to mind for you ? grubby ? slouched unkempt ? dreamy ? languid ? -or smart ? standing up straight ? dapper ? brisk ? fit ? You can disagree with my speculation if you wish, but I do not see how, in any way, the former adjectives could be made to gel with 'military appearance'.

There was another intriguing nuance to 'military appearance' at the time though...I see that soldiers had a terrible reputation for violence and drinking.. I believe that I read (and I will search for the sources if you force me to), that soldiers were un-welcome in alot of establishments, because of a reputation for getting drunk and causing trouble.So 'military appearance' might not be the most flattering description of a man, in this period. It might mean 'hard' and a 'drinker' (and this was a man working as a casual labourer on building sites, moving barrels in a pub, and living in a 'doss house' as a single young man).

Next, we can say a few certain details about Hutch the witness's personality ( which hold true whether he was the man in Miller's Court or not, and whether he was JtR or not) : he liked to be the centre of attention...going far beyond 'helping the Police' for any altruistic reasons, since he gave rather flamboyant descriptions to the Press, which effectively would have alerted a 'real' A Man to make a quick exit. He was also a fluent and articulate story teller -he took the Police in for some days, and he had the Press reporting his stories (and journalists are notorious for being cynical...again, it took them a few days).

Going back to Mike's original Post...watch Van der Sloot in an interview on Youtube, and you can see the similarities clearly..you can also see the similarities with Garry and Corey's 'profiles'.

I know, Fish, that it's easy to dismiss everything that I've said as 'Pure Speculation' -but please demolish my 'sketch' of Hutch point by point, and not just chuck it out 'wholesale'. I maintain that my 'sketch' adds up to a pretty good description of Hutch.

No, Ruby. It would have been much of a clincher. If Lewis was just steps away from Hutch on that night, then the same thing would apply the other way around. I fail to see why the police would shout blue liar if Hutch confirmed this.

Not at all -just like Van der Sloot, I believe that he was crafty and used information that the Police had to support his story; obviously he had seen Lewis, but he waited to see if she testified before coming forward. I'm sure that there were were witnesses who had seen him before -but had never come forward. Or got the description wrong.

"Actually there is an independant witness story that saw two men chasing down the street, which corroborates Schwartz's statement."

Seemingly, yes. But what I said was that nobody but Schwartz swore to BS:s mans existence, and the two runners would have been Schwartz and Pipeman. No BS.
True. Doesn't prove that BS didn't exist though.

"

After reading Wolf Vanderlinden's Dissertation on the subject, he proved to me (anyway), that Mrs Long did not see the killer"

And a very good suggestion on Wolf Vanderlindens behalf that is - but once again, what I said was that the police accepted Longs story in spite of it being non-corroborated, and I´m afraid that stands no matter what you, me or Wolf Vanderlinden think about the inherent veracity of it. It never enters the discussion.

How can you possibly say that 'it never enters the discussion' ? You cast doubt on BS man -but the Police took Schwartz seriously -you can't pick and choose. I've said before -if the Police were so right about all their judgements, then they'd have caught 'Jack'..and we'd not be picking over every aspect of the 'evidence'. As it happens, Vanderlinden bases his arguments on what the witnesses actually stated in 1888 -that is, pure facts- and it was an eye opener to Me(I'd always assumed that there was no doubt that Cadoche had heard noises 'next door' -false !). I'm not going to digress here anyway -suffice to say that, if you take the Doctor as being right, every mystery of the murder in Hanbury melts away.

"Because somebody putting themselves in a position where they might become 'accused' would not lie about facts which have no ostensible bearing on their guilt or otherwise. Why the hell get caught out as a lier on whether you're a plumber or a groom ??"

Ah - progress! Why indeed?

No -I don't think that Hutch would lie on his trade (no reason to)..he was a Groom, and he wasn't a Plumber (by the way, a groom might have a 'military appearance' and horses were a major army resource -a 'Plumber' fits nowhere).

"If we are not annoyed by the fact that Toppys handwriting matches the Dorset Street witnesses ditto, this is a viable suggestion. But to clinch it, we need to ensure that all the people of the Victorian East end who were once apprentices and who followed up on that apprenticeship to once work in the trade they were apprenticed to, always took the straight route and never deviated from it in any fashion, no matter what external pressure was applied, no matter what internal conflicts with family or tradesmen arose, no matter what love affairs, pecuniar difficulties, changed conditions, criminality etc. occured along the way.

The handwriting similarities could be read either way..since people learned to write in a rigid 'parrot fashion', following fashions of their time, there are big similarities -but far from conclusive.

When I was a 'Toppy-ite' I used to make the same argument as you -and indeed, I believe that Toppy did do other things. Still, he was only 22, and it didn't give him enough time to be an apprentice in plumbing ( I can't remember what Garry said -I will check it if you wish -but it took years and money to be qualified. He simply didn't have the time to be 'Hutch').

The example that I've given before is -if I imagine that I followed my Mother into nursing, and took a long time and alot of effort to qualify, and then had a Family row and decided to see 'the Big City'..I certainly might take a cleaning job in a hospital to make ends meet. If I became mixed up in a murder enquiry, I would give my occupation either as 'Nurse', 'currently unemployed Nurse, getting by on odd jobs' or 'Cleaner'..why would I say 'Chef' ? or somesuch ? (bound to be found out as a lie, anyway).

If I was living in digs, ekeing out a precarious living, and cleaning in a Hospital..I'd surely be well placed to know if any nursing jobs came up..and take them. Why an earth wouldn't I, if I was qualified for the job, and it paid better for something less boring and strenuous, not take the nursing job ,?
As a casual labourer, Hutch was in competion from lots of unskilled strong willing workers..desperate to earn a crust. He would have been very well placed to find plumbing jobs; so why didn't he take thm ?

There were loads of immigrants willing to work for very low wages.

Not so many Victorian young men could have afforded to follow a costly apprenticeship for the required time -being well placed in building jobs to know about any plumbers positions, and being so poor that he lodged in a doss house -why didn't he get any work as a plumber ?

Why would he say he was a groom ?

There are pirouhettes that we can do to bang Toppy (the round peg) into the square Hutch hole..but it is so much simpler just to drop the square peg into the square hole (and the same goes for the Wolf Vanderlinden dissertation, what's more).

[Rubyretro]

Thing is, Ruby, neither you nor me know if the description DID match Hutch, the reason being that neither you nor me have ever seen any description of him that stretches beyond "military appearance". So let´s not jump to conclusions here

Obviously it's all very sketchy (!) -but none the less I think that we can deduct a few things with near certainty : if Mrs Lewis described the man that she saw loitering as short and stout, then Hutch must have matched the description (even if he HADN'T been the man in Miller's Court, he still must have thought that he matched the description). If he had walked into the Police Station being very tall, or thin and sick, or very different to the description, then I think that the Police would immediately be wary and think that he was a fantasist..at least on a balance of probability, we can take Hutch as being 'short and stout'.

'Stout' we can deduce -also with certainty- is 'muscle bound ' rather than 'fat' or even 'flabby'. You would not describe someone as being 'of military appearance' if they were fat or flabby, just for starters. Next he was working as a labourer, and had apparently humped barrels, and his story about walking back from Romford was accepted -so he must have looked fit and strong. I think that Jack London points out that most of the men employed doing physical work at the time originally came from the country, because generations of East Enders were too slight and undernourished to do undertake hard physical jobs. Also, living in the Victoria Home, I doubt that he had the means to get fat.

So now we have a short muscular chunky young man of approx 28 or 29 (Hutch's given age somewhere).

Then there is the interesting detail of 'Military Appearance'...what would spring to mind for you ? grubby ? slouched unkempt ? dreamy ? languid ? -or smart ? standing up straight ? dapper ? brisk ? fit ? You can disagree with my speculation if you wish, but I do not see how, in any way, the former adjectives could be made to gel with 'military appearance'.

There was another intriguing nuance to 'military appearance' at the time though...I see that soldiers had a terrible reputation for violence and drinking.. I believe that I read (and I will search for the sources if you force me to), that soldiers were un-welcome in alot of establishments, because of a reputation for getting drunk and causing trouble.So 'military appearance' might not be the most flattering description of a man, in this period. It might mean 'hard' and a 'drinker' (and this was a man working as a casual labourer on building sites, moving barrels in a pub, and living in a 'doss house' as a single young man).

Next, we can say a few certain details about Hutch the witness's personality ( which hold true whether he was the man in Miller's Court or not, and whether he was JtR or not) : he liked to be the centre of attention...going far beyond 'helping the Police' for any altruistic reasons, since he gave rather flamboyent descriptions to the Press, which effectively would have alerted a 'real' A Man to make a quick exit. He was also a fluent and articulate story teller -he took the Police in for some days, and he had the Press reporting his stories (and journalists are notorious for being cynical...again, it took them a few days).

Going back to Mike's original Post...watch Van der Sloot in an interview on Youtube, and you can see the similarities clearly..you can also see the similarities with Garry and Corey's 'profiles'.

I know, Fish, that it's easy to dismiss everything that I've said as 'Pure Speculation' -but please demolish my 'sketch' of Hutch point by point, and not just chuck it out 'wholesale'. I maintain that my 'sketch' adds up to a pretty good description of Hutch.

No, Ruby. It would have been much of a clincher. If Lewis was just steps away from Hutch on that night, then the same thing would apply the other way around. I fail to see why the police would shout blue liar if Hutch confirmed this.

Not at all -just like Van der Sloot, I believe that he was crafty and used information that the Police had to support his story; obviously he had seen Lewis, but he didn't waited to see if she testified before coming forward. I'm sure that there were were witnesses who had seen him before -but had never come forward. Or got the description wrong.

"Actually there is an independant witness story that saw two men chasing down the street, which corroborates Schwartz's statement."

Seemingly, yes. But what I said was that nobody but Schwartz swore to BS:s mans existence, and the two runners would have been Schwartz and Pipeman. No BS.
True. Doesn't prove that BS didn't exist though.

"

After reading Wolf Vanderlinden's Dissertation on the subject, he proved to me (anyway), that Mrs Long did not see the killer"

And a very good suggestion on Wolf Vanderlindens behalf that is - but once again, what I said was that the police accepted Longs story in spite of it being non-corroborated, and I´m afraid that stands no matter what you, me or Wolf Vanderlinden think about the inherent veracity of it. It never enters the discussion.

How can you possibly say that 'it never enters the discussion' ? You cast doubt on BS man -but the Police took Schwartz seriously -you can't pick and choose. I've said before -if the Police were so right about all their judgements, then they'd have caught 'Jack'..and we'd not be picking over every aspect of the 'evidence'. As it happens, Vanderlinden bases his arguments on what the witnesses actually stated in 1888 -that is, pure facts- and it was an eye opener to Me(I'd always assumed that there was no doubt that Cadoche had heard noises 'next door' -false !). I'm not going to digress here anyway -suffice to say that, if you take the Doctor as being right, every mystery of the murder in Hanbury melts away.

"Because somebody putting themselves in a position where they might become 'accused' would not lie about facts which have no ostensible bearing on their guilt or otherwise. Why the hell get caught out as a lier on whether you're a plumber or a groom ??"

Ah - progress! Why indeed?

No -I don't think that Hutch would lie on his trade (no reason to)..he was a Groom, and he wasn't a Plumber (by the way, a groom might have a 'military appearance' and horses were a major army resource -a 'Plumber' fits nowhere).

"If we are not annoyed by the fact that Toppys handwriting matches the Dorset Street witnesses ditto, this is a viable suggestion. But to clinch it, we need to ensure that all the people of the Victorian East end who were once apprentices and who followed up on that apprenticeship to once work in the trade they were apprenticed to, always took the straight route and never deviated from it in any fashion, no matter what external pressure was applied, no matter what internal conflicts with family or tradesmen arose, no matter what love affairs, pecuniar difficulties, changed conditions, criminality etc. occured along the way.

The handwriting similarities could be read either way..since people learned to write in a rigid 'parrot fashion', following fashions of their time, there are big similarities -but far from conclusive.

When I was a 'Toppy-ite' I used to make the same argument as you -and indeed, I believe that Toppy did do other things. Still, he was only 22, and it didn't give him enough time to be an apprentice in plumbing ( I can't remember what Garry said -I will check it if you wish -but it took years and money to be qualified. He simply didn't have the time to be 'Hutch').

The example that I've given before is -if I imagine that I followed my Mother into nursing, and took a long time and alot of effort to qualify, and then had a Family row and decided to see 'the Big City'..I certainly might take a cleaning job in a hospital to make ends meet. If I became mixed up in a murder enquiry, I would give my occupation either as 'Nurse', 'currently unemployed Nurse, getting by on odd jobs' or 'Cleaner'..why would I say 'Chef' ? or somesuch ? (bound to be found out as a lie, anyway).

If I was living in digs, ekeing out a precarious living, and cleaning in a Hospital..I'd surely be well placed to know if any nursing jobs came up..and take them. Why an earth wouldn't I, if I was qualified for the job, and it paid better for something less boring and strenuous, not take the nursing job ,?

As a casual labourer, Hutch was in competion from lots of unskilled strong willing workers..desperate to earn a crust.
There were loads of immigrants willing to work for very low wages.

Not so many Victorian young men could have afforded to follow a costly apprenticeship for the required time -being well placed in building jobs to know about any plumbers positions, and being so poor that he lodged in a doss house -why didn't he get any work as a plumber ?

Why would he say he was a groom ?

There are pirouhettes that we can do to bang Toppy (the round peg) into the square Hutch hole..but it is so much simpler just to drop the square peg into the square hole (and the same goes for the Wolf Vanderlinden dissertation, what's more).

[claire]

There is also the possibility that, in a moment of rash thinking, he gave an occupation that was distant from his own...the 'ex' is crucial, as there would be no current employer to check that with, but if he said something that he might imagine the local coppers to know something about (eg. something in the building trade), they might ask questions...('oh yeah? who did you work for?') Following that train of thought, they might seek to ask about and discover that, in fact, they hadn't had anyone called Hutchinson working for them, but a man did match that description who went by the name of....whatever.

I expect to be disregarded. I'm quite enjoying becoming nobody. I hope one day to wake and discover I have just become part of my duvet.

[Fisherman]

Hi Ruby, and welcome back!

"please demolish my 'sketch' of Hutch point by point, and not just chuck it out 'wholesale'."

I do not wish to be rude in any way, Ruby, but I would urge you to ponder what Sarah Lewis said in her official statement to the police, preceding the inquest:

"Between 2 and 3 o'clock this morning I came to stop with the Keylers, at No 2 Miller's Court as I had had a few words with my husband, when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street ["talking to a female" - deleted] but I cannot describe him."

This is what the police had to go by from the outset - a man Lewis could not describe. Therefore, the Met must have reacted with surprise to the fact that Lewis was able to provide the man with a wideawake (not very much of a pointer) and a "not tall" description , hardly laying down much of a rule, and a "stout" addition - which could all be due to a roomy coat, some time later.
You see, Ruby, not only do we lack a description of Hutch - we also lack the same thing about the loiterer to a very large degree, and what little we have was not there from the beginning. Lewis´testimony is important only because she pinpoints a man loitering outside the court, not because it gives us much of an idea what that man looked like. My contention is that anybody ranging from 140 to 175 centimetres and weighing in between 60 and 100 kilograms, roughly, could correspond to this - and that is one hell of a spectre to cover.
Your own assessment of George Hutchinson is a good read, but it remains pure speculation, just as you say yourself.

"I believe that he was crafty and used information that the Police had to support his story"

More of the same, I´m afraid.

"obviously he had seen Lewis"

And again - it is in no way certain that "he" had seen Lewis, at least not if we are speaking of George Hutchinson, the confessed witness. If we are speaking of the loiterer, then yes, he would have seen Lewis in all probability. But to accept that these two men were one and the same is something we cannot allow ourselves to do, however.

"How can you possibly say that 'it never enters the discussion?"

Because it emphatically does not, Ruby. The discussion we are having here rests on my statement that nobody stepped forward to confirm the presence of BS man or Longs man, and still the police bought both their stories. Nothing else.
The Fairclough Street race, if you will, involves two men and two men only, and none of them would have been BS man. Ergo, Schwartz, and Schwartz only spoke of BS. And even if Wolf Vanderlinden is correct in his reasoning, that does not mean that we add another witness who saw Longs man, does it? Ergo, Long and only Long spoke of her Hanbury Street punter.
Point pretty much proven, wouldn´t you say?

"The handwriting similarities could be read either way..since people learned to write in a rigid 'parrot fashion', following fashions of their time, there are big similarities"

Oh, come on, Ruby! The different George Hutchinsons around at that time and stage have been looked at, and they all wrote in wildly different fashions. It is all in the earlier threads on Hutch. The personal traits in handwriting are something that won´t wash off.
You wrote yourself that you were once a convinced Toppyist, more or less. Why was that? Obviously, you once made the decision that the signatures were almost identical.
Then what happened? You came to believe that the circumstances involved would not allow for an identification? But, Ruby, you had already made that identification yourself, had you not? After such a thing, you cannot work "backwards". No matter what you learn, what you think, who influences your thinking und so weiter, the similarities inbetween the signatures will not change one iota - they remain the same, and they force us to ask the very pertinent question:
If the witness was the killer in Dorset Street, how much of a chance is there that he would have used the name "George Hutchinson" if it was not his true identity? It would not have been a spur of the moment thing - the police must have checked his address at the Victoria Home for corroboration.
But let´s say that the name George Hutchinson was just as likely as any other alias, for discussion´s sake.
Next up - if we have a genuine George Hutchinson, whose son confirms that his father had stated that he was the Dorset Street witness - then we must theorize that this genuine George Hutchinson had realized that there was a man who had used the same name as he had, and who had come forward to testify as an important witness in the Ripper case. After that, the genuine George Hutchinson would have taken on the role of the witness, or his son would have come up with a false story along those lines. It´s either or, Ruby. There is NO other way around it, if we don´t want to realize that Toppy was the witness.

Now, such a thing would in itself be a tall tale to top Hutchinsons witness testimony. It would be quite hard to believe.
But that is not all, is it? On top of all this, we have the signatures, where one copies the other, "parrot fashion" as you put it. The two men have similar signatures, more or less! Now, how remarkable is that?

And the reason you offer for this is that the Victorians were all writing in the exact same fashion, more or less!

Well, Ruby, I suggest you turn to the "Hutch in the 1911 census"-thread under suspects, George Hutchinson, page 2 on this site. Then look up post 18, where Sam Flynn lists a number of contemporary Goerge Hutchinsons and provides their signatures – none of which look alike at all! They differ much, in the same fashion as signatures did in the 18:th century, in the 17:th century, in the 16:th ... and today!

After that, I´d be much interested to hear you repeat that argument ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:

"There is also the possibility that, in a moment of rash thinking, he gave an occupation that was distant from his own...the 'ex' is crucial, as there would be no current employer to check that with, but if he said something that he might imagine the local coppers to know something about (eg. something in the building trade), they might ask questions...('oh yeah? who did you work for?') Following that train of thought, they might seek to ask about and discover that, in fact, they hadn't had anyone called Hutchinson working for them, but a man did match that description who went by the name of....whatever."

Makes a lot of sense to me, Claire ...
... however, unless he was bold enough to state that all the people he had worked for had emigrated to unknown shores or passed away, mourned by no relatives or friends, ANY information on his behalf would be potentially subjected to a follow-up by the Met:
"U-huh, a groom; and who was your employer ...?"
"So, casual labourer - and you worked latest for...?"

A man leaving no footprints at all on the labourmarket would be a man the police took a VERY big interest in, I should think.

Still, this does not mean that he could not have thought along the lines you suggest out of rash thinking, of course.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

There is also the possibility that, in a moment of rash thinking, he gave an occupation that was distant from his own...the 'ex' is crucial,

He waited a few days before coming forward, so I think that he thought about what he was going to say, before coming forward.

I agree that the 'ex..' is crucial. Groom was a specialised job as well..what could have made him change jobs ? I'd love to know !! Especially with Garry & Corey suggesting in thir profiles of the murderer , that 'he' would typically have begun by cruelty to animals.

Toppy wasn't an 'ex' plumber -he was just starting his long career.

as there would be no current employer to check that with, but if he said something that he might imagine the local coppers to know something about (eg. something in the building trade), they might ask questions...('oh yeah? who did you work for?')

I'm sure the Police did check, and there would have been clerks ledgers and witnesses , even if he was working casually..;he could afford logings, food and 'occasionally slipping Mary money' (according to him).

Following that train of thought, they might seek to ask about and discover that, in fact, they hadn't had anyone called Hutchinson working for them, but a man did match that description who went by the name of....whatever.

.
Well.;for 'speculation' that one is pulled out of a hat !

[claire]

Oh, I agree, Fish...but in some ways, it is easier to say, oh, I used to work for a chap over in Romford than it is to prevaricate a workplace in the neighbourhood--but, as you know, I still fancy Fleming quite a lot, so I am very prejudiced in this regard.

[Fisherman]

Claire:

" still fancy Fleming quite a lot"

In that case we are speaking of truly tall tales, as it stands

... but apart from that, Fleming is a very viable bet as far as I´m concerned. But not masquerading as George Hutchinson ...

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

I know, I know...but I haven't been sleeping well lately, so am indulging my wildest imaginings here!

[Rubyretro]

Yes, Fish -it's Me - back for another skirmish ! (and Hello Claire !)

This is what the police had to go by from the outset - a man Lewis could not describe. Therefore, the Met must have reacted with surprise to the fact that Lewis was able to provide the man with a wideawake (not very much of a pointer) and a "not tall" description , hardly laying down much of a rule, and a "stout" addition - which could all be due to a roomy coat,

.
I hardly think that the Police would be surprised at all if Mrs Lewis added 3 details at the inquest -infact she probably added them in direct response to close questioning by the Police themselves !

As to whether those elements offer any clues at all, although they may appear vague at first, here are a few constatations :

I went and read a whole load of descriptions of various men involved with the Ripper case, and that description couldn't apply to most of them. That is only to say that whilst you can't pin the Kelly 'loiterer' on anyone from that description, you can exclude truck loads.

You are a bit of a slippery Fishy because you tell me that we have to take what the witnesses say as being what they mean't to say -so going by this, if Lewis said 'stout, then she mean't 'stout'.
Lots of modern teenagers wear very 'roomy' clothes, but they don't look 'stout' any more than Charlie Chaplin looked 'stout' in his roomy clothes, or I look 'stout' if I slip on my husband's overcoat; Clothes hang off you when they're too big.You can't 'turn' her description to suggest that she said 'stout' but the' loiterer' just had roomy clothes !

Still , I must say that looking at the photo of the men in the Victoria Home, they seemed a short and stocky lot ! -( probably because they all did physical labour and were muscle bound and drank beer). Conversely in ordinary street scenes, there are some very 'peaky' weedy looking men.

Which neatly brings me to my last point -in that photo, the men in the Victoria home have mostly peaked caps, with a sprinkling of Billycocks. There are quite alot of men in the photo, as well as clothes hanging on hatstands -yet not one 'Wideawake' to be seen. Unless those men weren't wearing nearly everything they owned, and had suitcases filled with 'Wideawakes' under the table,I would deduce that casual labourers, dockers, market porters etc, lodging in Doss Houses, were not the best market for this style of headgear.

So let's turn to the moment when Hutch walks into the Police Station and identifies himself as the 'loiterer' seen by Lewis. I take it that you would agree that since he slept in a Doss House, he didn't have a fixed room with a wardrobe with it, but had his meagre possessions with him ? The Police had only 3 elements to go on from Lewis, and one must deduce that if they accepted Hutch's story, he must have been 'short', 'stout 'and wearing a 'Wideawake' on his head...or else could produce one squashed up in a pocket or his bag. Infact that hat, and the unusualness of it on the head of a dosser, might have been one element that Hutch feared would identify him if he didn't pre-empt any finger pointing

Your own assessment of George Hutchinson is a good read, but it remains pure speculation, just as you say yourself.

Speculation based on logical deduction, my dear Watson.

"obviously he had seen Lewis"

If we are speaking of the loiterer, then yes, he would have seen Lewis in all probability. But to accept that these two men were one and the same is something we cannot allow ourselves to do, however.

I'm still convinced they were the same man though..and that hat is a pretty nice clue.

(not digressing to talk about BS and Long here -but I would be pleased to do so on the appropriate threads).

"The handwriting similarities could be read either way..since people learned to write in a rigid 'parrot fashion', following fashions of their time, there are big similarities"

Oh, come on, Ruby! The different George Hutchinsons around at that time and stage have been looked at, and they all wrote in wildly different fashions. It is all in the earlier threads on Hutch. The personal traits in handwriting are something that won´t wash off.
You wrote yourself that you were once a convinced Toppyist, more or less. Why was that? Obviously, you once made the decision that the signatures were almost identical.
Then what happened? You came to believe that the circumstances involved would not allow for an identification? But, Ruby, you had already made that identification yourself, had you not? After such a thing, you cannot work "backwards". No matter what you learn, what you think, who influences your thinking und so weiter, the similarities inbetween the signatures will not change one iota

Well first of all, there ARE very big similarities in the signatures of people in a similar age range, from a similar geographical area, and born in the same era. I had a personal demonstration of this very recently : I've had my signature queried a couple of times..by my son's school, who thought that he must have faked my signature as it didn't look 'adult' (!), and when starting a new job. Infact, the French here are taught to sign with a totally illegible scrawl (it's supposed to be harder to falsify),and seeing french signatures all day at work, I can tell you that you usually can't make out one single letter, let alone have the slightest clue as to what the person's initials or name is. I, on the otherhand, have a clearly legible signature, with capital initials followed by my surname beginning with a capital. I showed my husband the signatures written on friend's letters from England, and there are very big similarities -for the prosaic reason that we were taught that way at (not by the same) school.

My handwriting has changed dramatically from childhood..I was taught to write in primary school with a fountain pen and an italic nib, in a typical slanted angular fashion, in North London. However my writing mutated into the rounded and looped writing which resembles those of my friends, after I grew up in an area where rounded and looped writing was the fashion. It is not so 'personal' as you may think.

I would say that Victorian children would write on a slate, ruling lines on it, and meticulously copying from a blackboard letters, with high letters touching the line above, y's and g's etc going to the line below etc, in a style that was fashionable with their teachers at the time. If they didn't write very much, then they would continue to write in the same way.

Anyway, you asked me what convinced me firstly to be a strong Toppy-ite and then 'repent'.
Let's set it out as a balance sheet:

The Reasons that I (used to) Believe that Hutch = Toppy :

1. Richard Nunweek heard a radio programme with Reg Hutchinson recounting what his Father told him about being the witness George Hutchinson, in an entirely simple, honest, and sincere way and using some telling detail (Wheeling Report). There is nothing to explain why the Hutchinsons would lie, and should not be taken at Face Value.

2. A most similar story was repeated in 'The Ripper and the Royals'

3. Reg Hutchinson mentions his Father talking about "Randolph churchill -or someone like him".Photos of Churchill could correspond to A Man's description. At this period, Churchill had virtually left Newmarket to concentrate on Racing, and was very present at Newmarket. Whilst A Man is surely fictitious (and Churchill evidently not the Ripper), there are none the less strong similarities in Toppy's and Hutch's descriptions of their suspect - a 'horse shoe tie pin and Hutch being an ex-Groom, and Newmarket being just over the border from Essex.could be a suggestion that Hutch was imagining Churchill ("or someone like him") when he described A Man.

4. Hutch said that he had just come back from Essex on the night that Kelly was killed, and the Hutchinson's had strong links to Essex -with Toppy's sister dying there (I think Toppys Father was born in Essex ?).

5. The signatures of Hutch and Toppy are very similar.

6.Both Toppy and Hutch were in their 20s

7; Hutch worked on building sites and Toppy was a plumber.

8.According to David Knott on these Posts, Toppy was in the East End at the time, and did do some other jobs (non specified). I have been assured that Knott is a descendant of Toppy's sister.

9. Serial killers CAN stop killing, and they can marry and have children. (Emile Louis -killer of 7 girls, is one example).

Here is why I changed my mind :

1. Nobody but Richard can vouch or prove that this radio interview ever existed (although I believe entirely that Richard is sincere). Indeed, D. Knott says that the older members of the family feel sure that they would remember if he HAD been on the radio, since this would be something out of the ordinary. In one of my 'fetish' books ('Reincarnation ? : The claims Investigated. by Ian wilson), the author establishes that the most believable 'reincarnation' recovered memories can all be demolished when he traces the source material. The people with the recovered memories are all sincere, and have no knowledge of where they learned the info, but the clinchers are when they repeat the mistakes or 'artistic license' in the original source -they usually begin their 'fantasy' by finding something that makes them feel 'involved' with the subject (in Toppy's case, a name in common).The people are usually artistic (the fact that Toppy married an actress might be a clue). Toppy was educated, and it would have been normal at the time to read up on the case particulrly, not just because of the Dramatic Event -but also the shared name. It was proved to me in these forums that the Wheeler report got the facts wrong and that, unwittingly was one of Toppy's sources
(You can experiment yourself with these' false memories' by using the 'creative section' of hypnotherapy.dot.com.-well worth the money, just to learn the deep relaxation techniques, and then using them for your own creative scenarios, or just for de-stressing).

2. ? Maybe that was the first interview ? Who knows..

3. Well, like the first Post, Toppy probably visualised Churchill -rather than the comic book Jew- when he read the decription of A Man in the papers..or he made the link later. Anyway, I think that was the subconcious image in his mind.

4. Actually, JaneKnott was living in London at the time of the killings. She never lived in Romford anyway. Bob Hinton pointed out that there was major building work going on in Romford at the time when Hutch went looking for work as a labourer.

5. There are heated debates on whether the signatures agree or not -and experts are far from 'unanimous'..basically you can argue either way and always find people to support or dispute your views: The verdict is 'out'.

6. Toppy was only 22 at the time
of the killings. We know for sure when he was a 'scholar', and that he followed an apprenticeship taking some years (and money), into the Family 'Trade'. Hutch said that he'd known Mary (5 ? 3?) years..and I think that's most likely true (surely the Victoria Home, and friends, acquaintances would give a rough clue as to how long they'd known Hutch ? How little work can we assume the Police did on such a major case ?). Toppy simply didn't have 'time' to be Hutch.

7. I've already gone into the Plumber v Groom argument. I can find no logical argument why Toppy would work for 3 years as a casual labourer, living in a Doss House (especially since Toppy couldn't actually have been there), if he was an educated qualified plumber? Why would he give his trade as a Groom (what bearing would that have ? -except to very rapidly expose himself as a liar ?
I mean WHY ?????

8; True -but Knott also went on to say that, although the Family asked him not to Post any details on the internet, after seeing said information on Toppy in the East End, he was 99.99% certain that Toppy could not have been Hutch.

9. Already discussed -if Toppy-as -Hutch worked on building sites as a casual labourer , he would be well placed to know about any plumbing jobs. Since plumbing jobs would have less competition, be better paid, be less gruelling, and give him more 'respect' -just why wouldn't he take them ? IF he had taken them, why did he lodge in the Victoria Home.. and why was he described as an ex-Groom ?

10. Yes, Serial Killers CAN go on to marry, and stop killing, but (taking Emile Louis as an example again), they are very 'dodgy' characters still -example: Louis was 'done' for beating up his first wife and raping his daughter. Toppy, as far as we can tell, appears to have lived an admirable and blameless life -including taking lodgings with 4 Policeman at one point ! Now, I'll add to Toppy:

11; There is a picture of an 'old' Toppy, and physically there appears to be nothing in common AT ALL with the Lewis description of Hutch...nor with my deducted (ok ! speculated!) description of Hutch. I see Hutch as being a nearing-thirty thuggish, racsist trouble maker I've already gone into the various meanings of 'Military Appearance'..and I cannot reconcile this description with 22 year old Toppy, who'd lived a rather privileged life.

12. I cannot reconcile Toppy's 'early life' (what we know of it), with the 'profile' of animal torture/arson/petty crime. Toppy does not fit what we know of the 'signs' for future Serial Killers.

I think that I've replied to you at enough length (!) now, Poisson , I think that you must get the picture on why I changed my mind.. In short, I wore myself out sledgehammering the 'round' Toppy into the 'square' Hutch hole (as I already said). It was a lot less tiring to admit that I was wrong.

[Fisherman]

Ruby writes:

"you tell me that we have to take what the witnesses say as being what they mean't to say -so going by this, if Lewis said 'stout, then she mean't 'stout'. "

´xcept she did NOT say that to the police - and they would have asked, Ruby, believe you me! Compare to Packer, if you will, and the magically appearing couple ...

"There are quite alot of men in the photo, as well as clothes hanging on hatstands -yet not one 'Wideawake' to be seen."

The "Billycock" and the wideawake was one and the same, Ruby. Look at street photos, and you will see what I mean. Blotchy is one example of a Billycock wearer.

"Speculation based on logical deduction, my dear Watson."

Strange then, that my own logic leads me down a different alley altogether, wouldn´t you say?

"Well first of all, there ARE very big similarities in the signatures of people in a similar age range, from a similar geographical area, and born in the same era."

There will always be similarities, yes, and factors like the ones you name will strenghten them. But it takes us nowhere near any "parroting"! Did you look at the post I told you to? With the different Hutchinsons? If so, what did you see? Could you tell them apart? No? Hmmm?

"5. The signatures of Hutch and Toppy are very similar."

That is the only point that needs to be made. The rest is all very, very secondary, beacuse we always end up with "Yeah, the signatures are a match, but..." and such a "but" is totally redundant. The signatures match, and that is all you need to know. After that, if you know that Toppy was in India on the autumn of 1888, you ALSO know that he made his way home in November.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

On the left is a 'Wideawake' and the right a 'Billycock'..(you forgot my hobby is vintage clothing..)

The Wideawake has a distinctive wide brim (as the name suggests);

The Billycock is like a Bowler, but with a higher crown.

[Rubyretro]

I have read all the Posts concerning the signatures..they are similar, but there is no unanimous verdict as to whether they are identical.

Even when I was a Toppyite, I didn't feel able to definitely pronounce upon the matter above quoting other people..because it is too difficult for Me to to come to a solid conclusion for myself : to look at them, the verdict is 'out'.

(x)

[Ben]

Hi all,

I find the observations regarding der Sloot – who was ostensibly a sociopath and liar, as Michael has indicated - a fascinating one, and the comparison with Hutchinson may well be very apt. I would be reluctant to conclude, though, that the apparent dropping of Hutchinson so soon after his account first appeared on the scene has anything to do with him receiving some sort of alibi for the period of Kelly’s death that placed him elsewhere other than Dorset Street. Firstly, it would have been an unnecessarily suicidal move to claim to be “walking about all night” when he had the opportunity to provide his genuine whereabouts for the generally accepted time of death (3:30am-4.00am) was clearly there, and secondly, the opportunities for actually procuring an alibi for such an ungodly hour were very slim anyway. (Is it likely, after all, that a solitary doss-house resident would have had company at that hour?) I think it rather more likely that Hutchinson dropped from the police radar as a result of glaring inconsistencies between his police and press accounts. There was nothing of a concrete nature to prove that Packer lied in his account, but he was also ditched, so we needn’t expect anything more with regard to Hutchinson and his “ditching”.

Also - and everyone’s mileage may vary on this - I doubt very much that Hutchinson noticed that a witness account had described a potential suspect, pretended that he was the individual described but claimed also to have been just a witness himself. Certainly, I’ve never encountered any comparable example of such behaviour in other criminal investigations. In contrast, there have been cases in which the offenders have recognised themselves in witness accounts, and who subsequently came forward with false excuses for their presence there, whether they were identified by name or not. I have always felt that Hutchinson could easily have been one such individual, and it would render him a decidedly unremarkable serial killer in the annuls of true crime, where this and similar acts of subterfuge aren’t really that odd.

On a separate note, can I make the humblest of requests to those who believe Toppy and the witness to be the same person that they might avoid referring to this opinion as fact? I’d be extremely grateful, as they are quite aware that other contributors to these discussions adhere as strongly to the “Toppy was NOT Hutch” theory as they do to the belief that the signatures match. I’ll say only – and without expecting a counter-argument on a thread largely unconcerned with this issue – that the WADE conference in the early 1990s conducted by an expert in document examination resulted in the conclusion that on the basis of the signatures, Toppy was not the witness in question. The subsequent discussions concerning plumbing apprenticeships etc have only cemented that conclusion, in my view. I’ll reiterate only that a 22-year-old labouring former groom in 1888 was very unlikely to have been a rarely-if-ever-out-of-work plumber by 1891, again, in my view.

But I don’t really want to go over all of this again. The central bullet point of my Toppy-musings today is simply a request to those with a contrary signature-related opinion to my own not to keep insisting on this “match” as something that has been factually established. It creates a misleading impression, when all that really needs to happen is for somebody to provide some links to earlier discussion, like this:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2204

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2113

That way, everyone is free to make up their own minds, old arguments don’t get repeated, and nobody gets annoyed.

Thanks in advance!

All the best,
Ben